Thank
you once again for your valuable comments on this complicated situation.
They have assisted me as I try to understand the dilemma. I would,
however, request clarification on a few items:

1.The viewpoint of history in my response was mine, I do not
completely understand nor speak for the Israeli perspective.

2.My opinion of Islam is as follows: it is a legitimate religion,
legally practiced by millions of law-abiding citizens, with a belief
structure that is agreed to by all participating members. I accept that
Muslims have nuances to their behavior as do Catholics, Baptists, Hindu,
etc. They have the right to practice their faith with the understanding
that my participation is not mandatory.

3.If the Palestinian people have been wronged and are entitled to
something promised by the United Nations, then their case has a right to
be heard. Since the Palestinian cause has been largely ignored to this
point (meaning multiple UN resolutions with no follow-up action), then
they must ask why.Is the
cause just? Have the international agreements been reached? If the
answer is yes then why has nothing been done? Is the problem the message
or the messenger?

I refuse to believe that the
United States government has a policy in which Palestinian subjugation
is the desired result. The Palestinian dream of nationhood is totally
consistent with America’s “give me liberty or give me death”
history.

4.I need to understand your definition of“racist and oppressive regime”. I would think that any
individual or exclusive group forcing their beliefs upon others without
concern of individual rights, the absence of due process and failure to
be tried by a jury of their peers, being persecuted because of race or
sex, and losing property or life for noncompliance would qualify as a
“racist and oppressive regime”. If this statement can be made
against Israel, how about Iraq? Possibly China?

5.The United States, at the request of many parties, has often
attempted to assist in the resolution to the question of Palestine with
less than ideal results. The current proposal from the United States is
unacceptable as compared to ………what?

6.I believe your comment regarding Egypt to be substantially
inaccurate. You infer the Egyptians are only staying away from the
Israelis as a condition of funding from the United States. Does this
mean the Egyptians can be bought? I think the government and people of
this country look upon them as friends, not mercenaries.

7.The murder I mentioned prior was that of Wall Street Journal
reporter Daniel Pearl. The fact that Mr. Pearl was slaughtered was sad
enough. The manner in which it was completed and videotaped simply
showed the ruthless nation of the perpetrators. My point here is not the
political or religious motivation but the presentation. If the world in
general sees this act as that of savages, then how does it perceive the
actions of the homicide-bombers? A group of individuals operating within
a support structure blowing up civilian buses in which the victims are
chosen at random. These are the actions of sociopaths, not martyrs.

If the Palestinians are out to win
the hearts and minds of democratic societies around the world then
improvement in public relations might be suggested.

As
we discuss this most crucial issue it is good to find common threads of
understanding. Those who strive for peace need only find the path.

Hassan
El-Najjar:

Your
first two notes were statements. That is why I'll start with the third.
There are scores of UN resolutions that address the Palestinian rights,
particularly to a state (the Partition Resolution 184, passed in 1947)
and to return to their homes and be compensated for their property
(Resolution 191, passed in 1949). Resolution 242, which was passed in
1967, called on Israel to withdraw from the Arab occupied territories.
Resolution 338, which was adopted after the 1973 October War, reaffirmed the
previous resolutions. Finally Resolution 1407, passed in 2002, called
for the establishment of a Palestinian state by 2005. More than 68
resolutions were passed to solve the Palestinian problem but Israel has
not observed any one of them. Why?

There
is one reason only. Successive US administrations have provided Israel
with the money and the weapons that allow the most aggressive nation in
the world to continue their occupation of the Arab lands. The US also
has consistently shielded Israel from any UN Security Council
resolutions that may order Israel to observe the previous resolutions. The US has
used its veto power more than other permanent members of the UN
Security Council and mainly to protect Israel. In deed, the US
unqualified support for Israel is the main reason that there have been
wars in the Middle East for the past 54 years. The Israelis have
launched a major war on their Arab neighbors in every decade. In every
one of these wars (except the 1956 war), the US government has replaced their military
hardware and increased its economic and financial aid to them.

The
Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not complicated for anyone who looks at
issues with fairness. Palestinians were in their country living in peace
for thousands of years until Zionist immigrants came from Europe and
America and established their state, Israel, in 1948. Had they accepted
the Palestinian people as fellow citizens of that state, with full rights
of citizenship, there would have been no problem. Instead, Israelis
denied Palestinians their right to live in their homeland. Moreover,
they took
their property, lived in their homes, and left them as refugees. That
Israeli wrong doing could be corrected by allowing Palestinians to have
their own state, some of them return to their villages and cities to
regain their property, and the rest who do not want to go back should be
compensated.

But
why has the US government assisted the Israelis to continue their wrong
doing against the Palestinian people? The answer lies is in the huge
influence supporters of Israel have on the US government. Their influence
is so overwhelming that they have been successful in making the US a
follower to Israel. Actually, there has been no US foreign policy in the
Middle East independent of the Israeli policy. But how could they manage
to have that influence? The answer is in their ability to control
foreign policy making for both parties, Democrats and Republicans. They
are given the major foreign policy decision making positions in any
administration. This is also echoed in Congress, which even supported
Sharon directly after the Jenin massacre. Thus, Zionist Israel is not only a
Palestinian problem, but it is also an American problem. It has led to
dragging the United States to the present conflict with the Arab and
Muslim worlds.

I
agree wholeheartedly with you that majority of the American people do
not accept the US foreign policy, which has catered so far to the
special interests of the Israelis irrelevant to the US national
interests or the values that Americans cherish. That is why there is
hope. Peace loving Americans who believe in human decency should not
stay as the silent majority. They must speak out and translate that into
voting for pro-peace candidates. They should insist on applying the
principle of checks and balances in high positions of decision making in
government that the founding fathers insisted upon. Right now, the US
government is one-eyed. It only sees the world with an Israeli eye. The
balance is not there. For this to happen, there should be Arab and
Muslim Americans wherever there are supporters of Israel in high
positions of government. This will give decision makers another
viewpoint, which is lacking now, and which is responsible for the
hostility between the US and the Arab and Muslim worlds.

I
can't see a better way to change American foreign policy to make it
American rather than Israeli than by more participation in voting in
elections. It is so sad that only about 36 percent of American
eligible voters voted in the Congressional elections of last month. This
means that the present Republican-dominated Congress, with all the
legislations that it will pass, represents only about half of that, that
is about 18 percent of eligible voters. The Democratically-dominated
Congress in the previous decades was not better either. It is the government of the
minority that acts on its own narrow interests, not the interests of the
American people as a whole, let alone the interests of peace in the
world.

With
regard to your fourth paragraph statement, it only applies to Israel,
the only remaining racist regime in the world. The Zionist regime is the
only one in the entire world in which about half of the population is
deprived of citizenship after being dispossessed. Neither Iraqi nor
Chinese regimes deprived people of citizenship.

Concerning
Iraq, there is no discrimination on basis of race, religion, or sex. The
major complaint of Iraqi dissidents is not oppression targeting people
because of their beliefs, sex, or skin color. Rather, it is the lack of
democratic rule in the Western liberal sense. In fact, Iraqi Kurds are
the only Kurds who have an autonomy since 1975. Both Sunni and Shi'a
Muslims in Iraq have the same complaints and are subjected to the same
rule of law. In fact, the Ba'ath Party, which rules Iraq, is a secular
party that does not treat people on basis of their religion. One of the
most prominent leaders in Iraq, Tareq Aziz, is an observing Christian in
a pre-dominantly Muslim country. There are many regimes around the
world, which are more oppressive, but nobody is paying them any
attention. Iraq has been the focal point of Cold War II strategists
since 1988. Now, it's the Israeli interests and the Iraqi oil that are
moving all this war fever in the US and the UK.

With
regard to China, nobody there is deprived of citizenship rights,
including the Tibetans. If you have a problem with the non-democratic
nature of the Chinese one-party political system, many Chinese have the
same problem. However, the government of China does not discriminate
against people on basis of religion or race, like Israel does. This is
the truth. The Israeli crimes against humanity are unprecedented because
they have so far denied the existence of about half of the population
after stealing the country from them.

In
response to your fifth paragraph, I can say that the US government has
never been serious about finding a solution for the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict simply because Israelis do not want this to happen. That is why
you hear about the Mitchell Plans, the Tenet agreements, and the present
Road Map. All of these have proved to be time-buying activities to serve
the Israeli government in each stage of its war against the Palestinian
people. America can do better than that. In 1956, President Eisenhower
"ordered" Israel to withdraw from Sinai and Gaza and it did.
But since then, no American President has been powerful enough to
withstand the pressure of Israel's supporters in the US. That is why the
giant super power of the world has become a follower of that small state
of Israel.

Sixth,
more than half of the US foreign aid goes to Egypt and Israel, what is
left of it goes to countries that Israel is pleased with. It is the
carrot part of foreign policy. Egypt had experienced the stick before,
like Iraq has been experiencing it since 1991. The war in Yemen
exhausted its resources but the 1967 war and the war of attrition
thereafter were devastating to the country. Therefore, Sadat went to
Jerusalem. He said that he could not fight the US, in reference to the
huge US military and economic assistance given to Israel. The US foreign
aid is the carrot given to Egypt for its peace with Israel.

In
the same sixth paragraph, you returned to using the term, the American
people. As I observed earlier, the US government, particularly in
foreign policy, represents the interests of the minority power elite
(the 18%). This means that the vast majority of Americans are absent
from the process. They can never agree to give Israelis all this
assistance while they are the aggressors and the bully of the Middle
East, if they have a say on the issue.

Finally,
I share with you your observation concerning the crime against the
journalist, Daniel Pearle, or any other innocent civilian. But we should
not implicate the "nation" like you mentioned. Rather, that
group should be held responsible. With regard to your observation about
the violence of Palestinian victims, it cannot be taken unless you
mention the Israeli crimes against humanity first. This is simply
because the Israeli occupation of Palestine is the ultimate violence and
all what Palestinians have been doing is a reaction to that Israeli
violence. If you have a problem with the method Palestinians have been
using, think about the following example. What about dropping a one-ton
bomb over a three-floor residential building just to kill one person?
Isn't that socio and psycho-pathetic, too. This was what Sharon did in
Gaza on July 23, 2002, killing about 17 and injuring about 170 innocent
civilians, including children. Think about his massacres in Sinai in
1956, in Beirut in 1982, and in Jenin in April 2002. Aren't these socio
and psyco-pathetic acts too? How can anyone describe him as a man of
peace? Is killing people with missiles from Apache helicopters, F-16s,
and Merkava tanks a civilized and humane act while killing them with a
suicide bomb a socio-pathetic act? There is nothing civilized or good
about war. How about killing Afghanis, Taliban, and Alqaeda prisoners by
suffocation in tanks? How would you describe it? What about napalm and
the Orange element in Vietnam? Finally, what about annihilating entire
cities by nuclear bombs? How would you describe it? My point is that
aggression and greed are the real human problems. We need to work on
that for the peace of present and future generations. Peace.

-------------------------------------------

*
In interactive editorials, the editor of Al-Jazeerah answers
questions and or responds to comments of readers, which are more general
than readers' responses to specific articles or issues. It is an
effective method of interaction in electronic journalism.